Myths about object-orientation and its pedagogy
Proceedings of the thirty-first SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education
Events and objects first: an innovative approach to teaching JAVA in CS 1
CCSC '01 Proceedings of the sixth annual CCSC northeastern conference on The journal of computing in small colleges
Difficulties in Learning and Teaching Programming—Views of Students and Tutors
Education and Information Technologies
Teaching objects-first in introductory computer science
SIGCSE '03 Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education
Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges
Rethinking of Teaching Objects-First
Education and Information Technologies
Resolved: objects early has failed
Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education
From objects-first to design-first with multimedia and intelligent tutoring
ITiCSE '05 Proceedings of the 10th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education
What do teachers teach in introductory programming?
Proceedings of the second international workshop on Computing education research
Introductory programming and the didactic triangle
Proceedings of the Twelfth Australasian Conference on Computing Education - Volume 103
Computer Science Education in Secondary Schools -- The Introduction of a New Compulsory Subject
ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE)
Object-oriented programming with gradual abstraction
Proceedings of the 8th symposium on Dynamic languages
Hi-index | 0.00 |
In this article we study how teachers of objects-first versions of CS1 courses all over the world understand the term 'objects-first'. By analysing the descriptions of the term objects-first from more than 200 teachers worldwide, we have found and described three categories: using objects, creating classes, and concepts. A second study of more than 40 teachers was undertaken to validate our suggested descriptions. Implications of the three categories are described. These were determined by analysing whether the three categories lead to different evaluations of typical CS1 topics. The differences are analysed in relation to three dimensions: the relevance of the topic, how difficult teachers think students find the topic and the level at which students are supposed to learn the topic. Overall, only small differences between the categories are found. The three categories characterize a little over 50% of the courses; the rest use a combination of the three categories.